from the that's-not-how-this-works dept

The internet never forgets, but apparently, someone involved in the Senate election campaign for Sharron Angle was unaware of this fact. It appears that Angle and her staff are also quite unaware of The Streisand Effect. As you may or may not know, Angle is running for US Senator in Nevada, where she's challenging current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid, apparently, has been using images from Angle's primary campaign website against her. Angle apparently totally revamped her website after winning the primary, apparently to tone down some of the rhetoric on the website. So, she's not very pleased that Reid is showing off her old website -- which his staff apparently reposted at a new domain.

So, what does she do? She sends a cease-and-desist to Reid for publishing her own website claiming that it infringed on her copyright. No, seriously. You can read the cease & desist here and laugh along with it. Her lawyers claim that Reid only did this to capture email addresses under false pretenses, but it seems pretty clear that Reid's campaign just wanted to highlight some of Angle's more incendiary comments from the primary campaign, which she's now trying to back away from.

And, of course, because of all of this, Angle and her lawyers handed the Reid campaign a perfect peg to highlight exactly those statements.

Re: Missing Mike's point

"I must be missing Mike's point entirely. It's not copyright infringement to mirror someone's site, or it's stupid to complain about it?"

Yes.

It can't be copyright infringement to repeat what a politician has said (otherwise, goodbye to the last semblance that this was a country that valued speech) and it is stupid to complain about it because... just ask Barbara Streisand.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing Mike's point

"The non copy protection dynamic is the double standard issue this post represents."

The non copy protection dynamic is whether, despite the copy protection argument (ie: that artists need to get paid to promote the progress and copy protection laws are needed for them to get paid), is there anything wrong with copying previous works in this situation. My position is no.

"It's exactly the type of justification media companies want for eliminating fair use altogether, If we can't tell the difference."

and I even disagree with the copy protection argument that any of this encourages people to promote the progress. If you are running for election and you are creating websites you don't need copy protection laws to encourage you to make websites that support your campaign. Your motive is your incentive to get elected.

The difference here is in the constitutions purpose for having copy protection laws to begin with. The purpose is to promote the progress of art and science. Applying those laws here does no such thing.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing Mike's point

"Countless examples here of fair use given at Techdirt, which I agree with BTW. Now we have an example of verbatim copying and the best argument is, 'it's the internet, I can do what I want'. "
The 'amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole' seems kinda irrelevant when the whole work is not only non commercial, but also political speech.

In countries which adopt the "droit d'auteur" system, it could be considered infringing of moral rights, more precisely the "right of repent" (she took content off, no one may republish without permission).

Re: Re:

No, I'm talking about a specific "droit d'auteur" institute. The artist have the moral right not to show a "copyrighted" work, even if the work has already been made public (in this case, the right is called "right to repent"). The reach of this right is arguable, however (e.g. a writer may prohibt the editor to sell her books, regardless of contrat, but cannot force buyers of the book to return it).

Being copyright infringement or not in this case is pretty immaterial (it's not like someone is selling your book/article under their name), more of case, if trying to rewrite history don't advertise someone's efforts to stop you. Better to just keep quiet and hope most people don't notice.

Just accept once something is on the net it is never really gone, just hope it fall's down far enough down the ranking that no one notices it, suing people just guarantee’s this will not happen

Re:

Too late

It's absolutely news to show someone's previous writings in a political campaign.

If it had been an article she wrote, it would be just as much newsworthy and re-publishing would be fair use. Why should a web page be any different.

At worst, Reid would have to simply republish the text without the layout, graphics, formatting. But when you're running for public office, the things you have written and published are now matters of public record, even if you've taken them off the web.

Re: Too late

A web page is not journalism unless it's intended to be, like a blog or journalism website.

A person has every option to change their website as their opinions differ. It's no weakness of character to change one's mind. Quite the opposite, in fact.

To make a copy of an old website in a journalistic sense and make the point that it was once this way, is one thing. To do so to proclaim someone still holds some old view in light of a new one, is the usual political trickery on Reid's part.

Re: Re: Too late

There is, and should not be, nothing illegal about it. At the very least one can show that this person is indecisive. If this person changes their position so often what makes you think they won't change their current position in the near future? and showing someones previous position in a political race is not morally wrong either. Heck, the Republicans did it to try and show that Obama supported a one payer health care system despite Obama's denial and claims that he changed his mind. It's done on mainstream media all the time, why should the Internet be any different?

Re: Re: Re: Too late

It is wrong if Reid is proclaiming that his version is the current state of things. Especially if using her site content verbatim.

I didn't see anything in the article to indicate multiple site changes, so your assertion to her being indecisive seems groundless. By changing her website, if anything she's being evasive on what she's previously said. I can't think of a single American politician who doesn't do that, Reid included.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Too late

"It is wrong if Reid is proclaiming that his version is the current state of things."

No it is not, not if Reid truly believes it is the current state. As long as Reid doesn't proclaim that this is Angle's currently proclaimed position. There is a difference. Then others can decide, based on the evidence, what to believe.

"I didn't see anything in the article to indicate multiple site changes"

Clearly there was at least one site change. If we're not allowed to reference and site changes and provide previous sites then how can we indicate it is so?

"By changing her website, if anything she's being evasive on what she's previously said. I can't think of a single American politician who doesn't do that, Reid included."

I never said there is anything wrong with being evasive, but there is also nothing wrong with pointing out the evasive nature of others.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Too late

"It is wrong if Reid is proclaiming that his version is the current state of things. Especially if using her site content verbatim."

From what I've seen (and the reposted site is apparently clobbered to unusability) it's a pretty accurate representation of her appeals to the base (i.e., those who vote in primaries) shown to the general populace.

I can't think of a more appropriate use of previously "published" statements.

hrmm

I'm not sure I completely agree with Mike on this one. Re-posting on something like archives.org is one thing. But just posting up the site and moving it to it's own domain seems a little wrong(unless of course they are just using the original linking and then she's an idiot for not taking the material off the server which would solve the whole problem). If they had cut it up to make commentary on it that would be one thing. I just don't think wholesale re-posting is something that should be allowed.

Re: hrmm

Re: hrmm

Well, then when you consider elections you can consider who you want to vote for. When I consider elections I want to consider the whole picture, the candidates proclaimed past and current positions. I see nothing wrong with copying and pasting the entire previous domain.

You think that the intuition of others is worse than yours? That others will get fooled by these posts into thinking that this person still holds such and such position when they don't and that only you are wise enough to know better and so inferior others need to have this information censored from them. That the American people need to be protected from this trickery by those who are wiser than the rest of us? Someone has every right to repost someone else's previous website and use it however s/he sees fit. The American people can decide what they want to think regarding who believes what and whom to vote for, but to censor someones position because those doing the censorship think they know better than and are superior to the rest of the American people reading the information is nonsense.

To deny someone the ability to freely post whatever they want (with few exceptions of course. Don't yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, no defamation. and arguing someones motives or true position isn't defamation. Misrepresenting facts, like saying that someone said something you know is false or did something that you know they didn't do, is defamation) under the pretext that it might be used to deceive others undermines the whole intent of free speech, that open discourse and the ability to say what one wants is the best way to arrive at truth and that no ones opinion deserves to be either helped or hurt by government because the government has no better intuition than others.

Re: Re: hrmm

Re: Re: hrmm

Actually, my intuition in politicians is that most are bought and paid for by corporate interests.

There's more to this then just defamation. There's a reason I can't duplicate any website and re-post it anywhere. Any number of business and commerce websites come to mind, Amazon, Google, Yahoo, CNN, etc. Your argument, "Someone has every right to repost someone else's previous website and use it however s/he sees fit", is not thought out very well because, it makes the internet effectively useless.

Now, if Reid wants to dissect an old version of her website for commentary purposes, that's fair use.

Re: Re: Re: hrmm

"because, it makes the internet effectively useless."

No, it does no such thing. You are free to copy techdirt and it does nothing to make the Internet useless. Your comment that it makes the Internet effectively useless is not only poorly thought out, it's incorrect.

Also, there is a difference between trademark infringement (intentionally imposing others) and merely copying others. I am not referring to fraudulent behavior.

Re: Re: Re: Re: hrmm

"No, it does no such thing. You are free to copy techdirt and it does nothing to make the Internet useless. Your comment that it makes the Internet effectively useless is not only poorly thought out, it's incorrect."

How do you tell the fakes, then? Thousands of perfect copies of www.Techdirt.com out there, and a percentage have been 'doctored'. If that occurred, I think Mike would have something to say about the practicality of his policy, if his policy even goes that far to allow a mirrored website. Mike, you want to comment on if that would be allowed?

Mike is a H*LL lot more ethical then your average politician. If all the politicians do the copy verbatim thing, a few would eventually modify it and then have the disclaimer in micro-print at the bottom, that the page is "commentary or editorializing". All in an effort to misrepresent their opponent.

You know they will, that's the point. If your gonna argue this issue, address that. Enough with the easy answers, already.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrmm

"How do you tell the fakes, then?"

You are confusing trademark with copying. I never said it's OK to falsely pretend to be techdirt, I said it's OK to copy techdirt. There is a difference. Claiming to be someone and copying someone are two different things.

"If all the politicians do the copy verbatim thing, a few would eventually modify it"

but saying that people should be allowed to copy another site verbatim and claiming that people should be allowed to purposely defame what someone said are two different things. I never said that they should be allowed to purposely change what someone said but saying that such practices should not be allowed is different from saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to copy someone else's website.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrmm

I would say that yes, it is more of a trademark issue in the sense that the website name and content MIGHT be misleading. I personally feel the disclaimer at the top along with the fact that she is a Republican Candidate and the site is "paid for by the Nevada State Democratic Party" make it clear that it is not her actual site. However the proverbial 'Moron in a Hurry' might be misled, maybe.

That said, Sharron Angle let us introduce you to The Streisand Effect, Streisand Effect meet Sharron Angle. Good luck with your election.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrmm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrmm

and if you want me to address your alleged miscopying, the defendant can easily store their own website and then claim that their website was altered. Others who stored the website as well or who remember, or independent website archives who are allowed to copy the websites as well, can verify. Altering a website creates a huge risk for the reputation of person/entity doing it because they will likely be called out on it with evidence and won't have any evidence of their own but their own testimony.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrmm

"Enough with the easy answers, already."

No, if your alleged issue is a problem, which it's not, the easy answer is to ban copying of previous websites. That's the easy answer. With that logic the easy answer to stopping murders is to ban knives and guns too. That's the easy answer. Lets ban cars too since people die of car accidents. People drown, lets ban swimming pools. That's the easy answer. The hard answer is to have systems in place designed to deter this kinda behavior. Third party archive websites, third party caching, and enabling others to keep records of websites, encouraging authors to not delete previous pages but keeping them available as archives, etc... Changing what someone said is very risky for the person doing it and his/her reputation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrmm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrmm

I looked, I found several sites scraping Techdirt's articles (some with and some without the comments) but i could not find an out and out mirror, except on sub-domains of Techdirt itself (i.e. delta.techdirt.com or blog.techdirt.com) Then i took a closer look at one of them.

Re: Re: Re: hrmm

"There's more to this then just defamation. There's a reason I can't duplicate any website and re-post it anywhere. Any number of business and commerce websites come to mind, Amazon, Google, Yahoo, CNN, etc. Your argument, "Someone has every right to repost someone else's previous website and use it however s/he sees fit", is not thought out very well because, it makes the internet effectively useless."

And those sites' commercial nature would be taken into account when considering fair use. However, as the site in question isn't of a commercial nature, I find the comparison rather pointless.

Re: Re: hrmm

I'm not denying the ability to freely post something. I just think that it would have been a much better more intelligent move to point to the archives.org page that show's her past opinions or put the text of what she said on a website that show's who's it is. If they just re-posted the site verbatim that is misleading people into probably thinking that she still believes whatever it says. If they cut it up/point to an archive of it(which is an obvious archive) they have the legitamacy of saying this is what she thought and now she has flip-flopped.

re: dont want you rwebsite seen

Taking a web site off the net isn't an option, and hasn't been an option for years. If you really don't want you content seen on the internet, the only way to do it is to not put it up in the first place.

Re: Re: re: dont want you rwebsite seen

It does not make Reid dishonest unless she has said she has changed her views.
This happened with a VA senator who had his misogynistic Masters thesis of 20+ years ago waved in his face. He said "hey, that was a long time ago. I have daughters in the army now and that's changed my views. I don't believe that anymore."

This is just an urge for Angle to disclaim her former statements.
I'll just sit here and wait for her to do that.

Apparently, the replacement site has gotten semi-slashdotted (the main page is loading for me, but I'm getting "bandwidth exceeded" errors when I click on most of the links).

On the other hand, you can of course see some of the pages that were taken down in the Google cached version.

Simply posting his opponent's own campaign web site was really a great move on the part of the Reid campaign; it's too bad they didn't stick with more direct quotes on their "underground bunker" replacement.

Got to love politics
This is one of the dumbest threats I have seen in decades yet the same people who are usually on here BLASTING these types of people are suddenly supporting Angle....why? Because she is a Republican and they are unable to even slightly admit their own constant stupidity

Re:

I think the situation here is genuinely rather ambiguous: as far as I can tell from google cache, the Reid folks literally just mirrored the whole site from as it was during the primary, with no notice (aside from the ambiguous domain name) that it wasn't the actual candidate's site.

Personally, I would see no problem at all with the site if they'd simply added a banner at the top of each page (e.g. using frames) making it clear that the site was not the candidate's official site (with link to actual official site), was copied verbatim from her old official site to let voters see how her positions have changed since the primary, and that the site was paid for by the Reid campaign.

As it is, the smart thing to do from the Angle campaign's point of view would have been to have their lawyer send a polite note demanding that the above be added. It would have avoided the Streisand Effect and fixed the ambiguity problem (and I imagine the Reid campaign would have merely added the disclaimer and not actually modified the site to more effectively display the differences since the primary).

Skew

Ouch... wrong this time Mike...

This is the first time I completely disagree with you and know that you are 100% wrong if you don't see this as copyright infringement.

A website is a creation. The creation is protected by copyright. They took the copyrighted material and made an unauthorized copy of it.

This is pretty a pretty blatant copyright infringement. In essence, they took someone's book and republished it without permission.

I think she was well within her rights to order a cease and desist. If someone had copied my entire site, I'd be upset too.

At least do SOMETHING with it... provide commentary on the content or show a flip-flop in opinion... spoof the site or... SOMETHING. Political satire is one thing.

But copying the website verbatim?

Wrong.

Why? Because this is an elected official. One of the morons who could actually make changes to our broken IP laws but doesn't do a darn thing and just flaunt and breaks the law whenever it's convenient or expedient to him.

I saw take Reid and fine him $150,000 for each page, each image, etc. he "STOLE".

Or have the US Copyright Group send Reid an extortion letter!

Then... maybe... perhaps... someone will actually get angry enough to examine the laws.

Re. Dan's comments

This website was public, political speech/advertising made by a public figure running for public office. That's a pile of fair use justifications right there.

Furthermore, by trying to distance herself from these statements, Angle is creating a whole new story worthy of covering, which brings even more fair use.

Moreover, there is a compelling public interest in making archive of these statements available. These aren't trivial comments - they're the platform and policies of a potential U.S. Senator. This is not "Blue is my favorite color" factoids ... rather, this site advocates the U.S. leaving the U.N., eliminating all benefits for illegal immigrants and reversing recent healthcare legislation (among other positions).

The issue isn't whether or not these are good policies (that's for Nevada voters to decide). The issue is that Angle seems to be trying to "disappear" them without actually having to . Again, it's not like she said "I've thought about it and my positions have changed" or even "I didn't state these ideas in the best way possible."

Angle made these statements (and this site) in an attempt to win the primary election against other Republicans. Part of that winning bid involved gaining support from the Tea Party, which is a highly conservative offshoot of the Republican party. Given that this was a hotly contested primary she was not initially favored to win, the Tea Party's endorsement as the truly conservative Republican candidate likely helped Angle win.

Having done that, Angle is now competing in the general election against an incumbent Democrat (Reid). As such, she's attempting to package some of her positions as more centrist to appeal to the majority of voters.

It's a fine line - recant too much and risk alienating her conservative supporters; don't edit enough and risk not appealing to moderates.

So Angle's issue isn't about having said a controversial thing or even not defending it when confronted. It's about issuing non-denial denials and attempting to pretend like the offending statements never exists.

Again, these statements aren't idle gossip or chatter... they're part of the serious work of democracy. As such, it is of critical importance voters know exactly who it is that's asking for their votes.

I wouldn't say this is infringement. They are not selling it, first off. Secondly, I would compare it to finding literature she passed out in her primary, then reprinting it and saying: "this is exactly what she passed out a month ago." Political and public figures lose a bit of their protective rights. For example you can use their likeness without permission, but that isn't so for some random person. This should also apply to statements they make, and especially to political platforms. Copypasta-ing the entire website is a grey area, but I would still consider it the same as copying literature and putting it on a placard to say: this is what she passed out. Intentional deception, and use for monetary gain is what should count for copyright infringement. Did she file for copyright anyway?